Comments: This was written in response to David Ley’s blog post attacking nofap. It serves a bigger purpose: 1) to expose that the so-called science contradicting porn addiction is smoke and mirrors, and 2) the papers claiming to refute porn addiction come from two individuals who often team up – Nicole Prause & David Ley.

Article

David Ley’s blog post The NoFap Phenomenon is packed full of straw men, mischaracterizations and lies. Note that Ley’s post contains no references to back his claims. Also note that Ley closed comments, which is very unusual for Psychology Today blog posts. In essence, Ley’s post borders on libel with no support for his allegations or claims.

Ley is the author of The Myth of Sex Addiction. He has written 30 or so blog posts attacking and dismissing NoFap, porn addiction, sex addiction and porn-induced ED. On multiple occasions David Ley has teamed with close ally Nicole Prause to harass and defame NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes (and others). Here we provide a few examples (the links take are to sections of extensive pages chronicling Prause harassment and defamation of many individuals and groups). The following sections reveal Prause and Ley’s true nature:

In addition, David Ley chronically asserts that porn use is harmless and if someone develops problems it’s because they had “other issues”. TV shows, magazines, websites too often turn to Ley as an “authority” on porn addiction and porn’s effects because the medical researchers – who would give an accurate picture of the state of internet addiction research – generally aren’t focused on internet porn specifically. Nor are they as readily available as eager Dr. Ley. He therefore gets to shape the debate in the media despite his utter lack of education in the neuroscience of addiction and sexual conditioning, and having never published any original research.

As stated, David Ley has a history of attacking Nofap, reddit/Pornfree, RebootNation, etc. in blog posts and on Twitter. While the vitriol of his rhetoric has increased, he no longer allows rebuttal. Ley closes comments on most porn-related blog posts (or if he opens comments he deletes those challenging his claims). He has done so because comments on his post calling porn-induced ED a myth didn’t go his way. Specifically, the following comments under that post, by two experts who took him to task, led to his eventual ban on commenting.

Ask yourself: How ethical is it for a psychologist to attack self-help groups such as Nofap? If he has a problem with the concept of internet porn addiction, shouldn’t he attack the scientists who are doing the research rather than people who are struggling to recover? What would you think of a “scientist” who didn’t believe in cancer, but instead of going after oncologists, went after cancer patients struggling to regain their health?

And how ethical is it to mischaracterize and libel these groups quitting porn and sharing their experiences – yet allow them no recourse because you closed comments? I could go line-by-line through Ley’s post, but here are a few examples of unsupported claims from his post attacking Nofap:

“An interesting note is that no one in the r/NoFap movement is actually a scientist who does research on neurophysiology and function.”

Ley is claiming to know the occupations of all 400,000+ members of Nofap. Really? Actually, Nofap includes neuroscientists, psychologists, and several MD’s who identify as such. Here are a few MD’s who recovered (PIED). Here’s a young psychiatrist, who had PIED, whom I interviewed on my radio show. Ley thinks nothing of making up crap that fits his prejudices on this subject:

“Instead, they are enthusiastic amateurs, who’ve learned enough about brain science to be dangerous, as they see what they expect to see, and interpret brain science to support their assumptions.”

Of course he gives no examples, no citations, just vague accusations. It must be noted that Ley has absolutely no background in neurobiology. This is the same claim made in many of Ley’s other porn-related posts. But what is the reality?

Reality

First, there are 41 neurological studies,and 21 reviews of the literature/commentaries published on porn users: Without exception every study and review lends support for the porn addiction model. See this page Brain Studies on Porn Users for an up to date list. These are not “enthusiastic amateurs” or “just YBOP” saying porn use induces addiction-related brain changes. (That is what Ley tells journalists who contact him.) Top neuroscientists at Cambridge University, Yale University, and Germany’s Max Planck Institute are saying porn use can alter the brain.

Again, that’s 100% of the published studies. These brain studies must be considered in a larger context as well. In the last few years over 330 internet addiction brain studies have arrived, all showing the same fundamental brain changes as seen in drug addiction. Many internet addiction studies include porn users, and all point to the ability of internet-based stimuli to cause pathological learning (in this case, addiction).

The internet addiction studies must be considered in the context of decades of addiction neuroscience, which informs us that all addictions share the same fundamental brain changes and mechanisms. In line with the preponderance of evidence, The American Society of Addiction Medicine published a “new definition of addiction” in 2011. ASAM stated that behavioral addictions exist, including sexual behavior addictions, and they are as real as drug addictions.

ASAM’s 3000 medical doctors are the real addiction experts, not Ley or other vocal sexologists who claim that internet porn has no more impact on the human brain than stick figures on cave walls. ASAM’s members include many of the world’s top addiction neuroscientists. Read Ley’s blog posts carefully. He does not cite a single addiction neuroscientist. What “science” does Ley use to back his claims? Mainly the research papers he and his sidekick Nicole Prause produce, rubber-stamped by their sexology cronies. These papers would simply not pass peer-review by addiction neuroscience experts.

Where’s Ley’s evidence?

Surprisingly, most of Ley’s “science” relies on only two people, himself & Nicole Prause, and these two papers:

First paper: “Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images” (2013). Nicole Prause was the main author

Second paper: “The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ model” (2014). David Ley & Nicole Prause were the main authors.

Ley & Prause not only teamed up to write paper #2, but they also teamed up to write a Psychology Today blog post about paper #1. The blog post showed up 5 months before Prause’s paper was formally published (so no one could refute it). You may have seen Ley’s blog post with the oh-so-catchy title: Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive. Put simply, most of the noise emanates from two people who teamed up to write and publicize two papers. Neither paper is what it claims to be, nor what the headlines imply.

First paper – The Nicole Prause EEG study (Steele et al., 2013)

This Nicole Prause EEG study study actually supports porn addiction (the first of the two papers just discussed). While Prause made several unfounded, contrary claims in her press interviews about it, her study actually reported higher EEG readings when porn users were exposed to cues. This is exactly what occurs when addicts are exposed to cues related to their addiction. Thus, Prause’s results found evidence consistent with porn addiction – even as she claimed the opposite. In addition, the study reported greater cue-reactivity for porn correlating to less desire for partnered sex. Put simply: The study found greater brain activation for porn and less desire for sex (but not less desire for masturbation).

Shockingly, study spokesperson Nicole Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido,” yet the results of the study say the exact opposite (subjects’ desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use). Together these two Steele et al. findings indicate greater brain activity to cues (porn images), yet less reactivity to natural rewards (sex with a person). That”s sensitization & desensitization, which are hallmarks of an addiction.

“My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find.”

You can also read these 7 peer-reviewed analyses of Prause’s 2013 EEG study. All support Johnson’s claims that Prause’s study actually aligns with the “addiction model” (that she and Ley irresponsibly disparage).

The second paper is not a study at all. Instead, it claims to be a “review of the literature” on porn addiction and porn’s effects. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following is a very long analysis, which goes line-by-line, showing all the shenanigans Ley & Prause pulled – The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review It completely dismantles the so-called review, and documents dozens of misrepresentations of the research they cited.

The most shocking aspect of the Ley review is that it omitted ALL the studies that found negative effects/evidence of porn use. Yes, you read that right. While purporting to write an “objective” review, these two sexologists justified omitting these studies on the grounds that these were correlational studies. Guess what? All studies on porn are correlational. There are, and pretty much will be, only correlational studies, because researchers have no way to find “porn virgins” or keep subjects off of porn for extended periods in order compare effects. (Thousands of guys are quitting porn voluntarily on various forums, however, and their results suggest that internet porn is the key variable in their symptoms and recoveries.)

A few examples of what Ley & Prause pulled:

As stated, they did not allow any studies showing ill effects from porn use on the grounds that they are “merely” correlational, and then proceeded to cite as support for their pet theories various correlational studies.

They cherry-picked random, misleading lines from within studies, failing to report the researchers’ actual opposing conclusions.

They cited as support numerous studies that are entirely irrelevant to the text and the claims made.

They defended their dismissal of behavioral addiction on the basis of studies that are as much as 25 years old, ignoring recent, far more numerous, contradictory studies/reviews that reflect the current consensus of addiction experts.

They did not acknowledge (or analyze) dozens of brain studies on internet addicts.

They ignored the two publicized brain-scan studies performed on porn users at Cambridge University and Max Planck, which dismantle the Ley/Prause conclusions.

Incidentally, their pro-porn editors Michael Perelman, Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz resuscitated a defunct sexology journal called Current Sexual Health Reports (which hadn’t published in many years) in order to foist this “review” on the unsuspecting public! I suspect Ley made history: this may be the first time ever that a literature review was authored by someone who 1) has never published before 2) has no expertise in the field (addiction).

Bottom line: When you see a link to an article that says porn addiction has been dismantled, follow the source. I can almost guarantee you will discover one of these 2 easily refutable, and irresponsible papers behind the claims.

Historical ED rates: Erectile dysfunction was first assessed in 1940s when the Kinsey report concluded that the prevalence of ED was less than 1% in men younger than 30 years, less than 3% in those 30–45. While ED studies on young men are relatively sparse, this 2002 meta-analysis of 6 high-quality ED studies reported that 5 of the 6 reported ED rates for men under 40 of approximately 2%. The 6th study reported figures of 7-9%, but the question used could not be compared to the 5 other studies, and did not assess chronic erectile dysfunction: “Did you have trouble maintaining or achieving an erection any time in the last year?”.

At the end of 2006 free, streaming porn tube sites came on line and gained instant popularity. This changed the nature of porn consumption radically. For the first time in history, viewers could escalate with ease during a masturbation session without any wait.

Ten studies since 2010: Ten studies published since 2010 reveal a tremendous rise in erectile dysfunctions. In the 10 studies, erectile dysfunction rates for men under 40 ranged from 14% to 37%, while rates for low libido ranged from 16% to 37%. Other than the advent of streaming porn (2006) no variable related to youthful ED has appreciably changed in the last 10-20 years (smoking rates are down, drug use is steady, obesity rates in males 20-40 up only 4% since 1999 – see this review of the literature). The recent jump in sexual problems coincides with the publication of numerous studies linking porn use and “porn addiction” to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli.

Until one can explain a recent 500%-1000% jump in ED rates for men under 40, it’s wise to assume that the above experts may be right about PIED, and that sexologists with an agenda are likely untrustworthy.

Update: It should be noted that both David Ley and Nicole Prause profit from denying sex and porn addiction. For example, both now offer “expert” testimony against sex addiction fee. At the end of this Psychology Today blog post Ley states:

Ley also makes money selling two books which deny sex and porn addiction (“The Myth of Sex Addiction“, 2012 and “Ethical Porn for Dicks“, 2016). Pornhub is one of the four Amazon.com endorsements listed for Ley’s 2016 book. Finally, David Ley makes money via CEU seminars, where he promotes the ideas presented in his two books.

From her Liberos website (page since removed, and Prause had it removed from the Internet WayBack Machine):

“Sex addiction” is increasingly being used as a defense in legal proceedings, but its scientific status is poor. We have provided expert testimony to describe the current state of the science and acted as legal consultants to help teams understand the current state of the science in this area to successfully represent their client.

Legal consultations and testimony are generally are [sic] billed on an hourly rate.

Most shockingly, Prause (and occasionally Ley) engage in targeted harassment, defamation and cyber-stalking. See this page that was created to counter the ongoing harassment and false claims made by former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause as part of an ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with her conclusions deserves to be reviled.